At this rate, between North Korea, Charlottesville and the climate crisis, it's unclear if America can survive being too much "greater", as the political cartoonists in PDiddie's latest weekly collection illustrate...

Last night we offered some very encouraging news about an apparent federal challenge, in the works by the U.S. Dept of Justice, against the state of Pennsylvania's disenfranchising, GOP-enacted, polling place Photo ID restriction law. Today's news is even more encouraging!

The stipulation agrees, in plain language, that there has never been a known case of in-person voter fraud --- the only type of voter fraud that can even possibly be deterred by such restrictions --- in the history of the Keystone State, or even in other states, for that matter...

STIPULATION

Petitioners and Respondents, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. There have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states;

2. The parties are not aware of any incidents of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and do not have direct personal knowledge of in person voter fraud elsewhere;

3. Respondents will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere;
...
5. Respondents will not offer any evidence or argument that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of the Photo ID law.

I don't think it can be stated any plainer. The GOP's polling place Photo ID restriction, which they have passed under the guise that it is needed to prevent "voter fraud", is, itself, a fraud.

Of course, we've been arguing this point for some time (going on 10 years, in fact). In state after state where these laws have been passed by Republican legislatures and signed by Republican governors on the basis that they are needed to curb "voter fraud", the proponents of the laws in every state have been unable to offer even a single historical case of voter fraud in their state which would have been prevented by these measures.

In other words, these laws are not meant to curb "voter fraud", they are meant to curb voting --- specifically, by people who don't have the type of state-issued Photo ID required under these new laws. In the case of PA, that amounts to some 750,000 legally eligible voters, by the state's own numbers --- more voters than Obama won the state by in 2008. The voters most effected by these laws, as study after study have shown for years, are far and away more Democratic-leaning than Republican.

That's the entire story on these purposely disenfranchising voter suppression laws. Period. Always has been, always will be. That, despite the unforgivably poor reporting by many in the corporate mainstream media suggesting there is some legitimate reason to enact these laws. There isn't. There never has been. And it is that poor reporting which has allowed the GOP to keep this issue alive, as if it is anything but a blatant attempt to suppress the Democratic-leaning vote...

Last night, I detailed news of the U.S. Dept of Justice finally probing the discriminatory impact of the GOP's polling place Photo ID restrictions in PA.

As I explained, the new federal effort is verysignificant, in that it's the first time the DoJ has signaled they may bring a legal challenge to such a law under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA). That part of the landmark federal law presents a more difficult burden of proof for the federal government than cases where they have blocked similar laws in the recent past under Section 5. In Section 5 cases, the burden is on the 16 states (or parts of states) which are covered by that section of the law, due to their history of racial discrimination, to prove that their new election laws do not have a discriminatory effect.

We have, for some time, been calling on the DoJ to bring Section 2 challenges in states where the GOP has imposed disenfranchising polling place Photo ID restrictions, but where the jurisdictions are not those required to receive preclearance for such new laws under Section 5 of the VRA.

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Kansas are just a few such states where Section 2 federal challenges ought to be brought immediately to ensure that all eligible voters who wish to vote are able to do so this November. So, for the moment, we see the DoJ's actions taken to date in PA to be a positive, if long overdue, sign that they are finally taking this stuff seriously in practice, not just in words. We'll be happier still when they take similar action in some of the other states which are not so key to an Obama re-election victory this November.

In the meantime, it has been left to local civil rights groups to bring challenges in such states. Tomorrow, the ACLU's challenge to PA's Photo ID restriction, arguing that it violates the state constitution --- as The BRAD BLOG detailed last May --- gets under way. Our colleague, Ari Berman at The Nation, offers a preview of that case today:

Tomorrow the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania will hear a challenge to the state’s new voter ID law from the ACLU and other voting rights groups. The lead plaintiff is Viviette Applewhite, a 93-year-old great-great grandmother who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Applewhite worked as a hotel housekeeper and never had a driver’s license. Four years ago, her purse was stolen and she lost her Social Security card. Because she was adopted and married twice, she cannot obtain the documents needed to comply with the state’s voter ID law. After voting in every election for the past fifty years, she will lose the right to vote this November.

The ACLU will argue that Pennsylvania’s voter ID law needlessly disenfranchises voters like Applewhite and violates Article I, Section 5, of the state constitution, which states: “Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” As in Wisconsin, where two federal judges have blocked that state’s voter ID law, the Pennsylvania Constitution affords strong protections to the right to vote.

We offered more on the lead plaintiff Applewhite, including an interview with her, right here.

Given the remarkable stipulation now entered into evidence --- essentially concurring that polling place Photo ID restrictions are nothing more than a "solution" in search of a "problem" --- it's difficult to imagine how the Pennsylvania law can stand up to any legitimate legal scrutiny, whether at the state or federal level, when, clearly, it stands to disenfranchise legal voters, for no known, legitimate governmental interest.

You obviously have never read any historic news articles on actual voter fraud in PA. Please do your research. Read the articles of the actual documented voter fraud that has occurred in TX. Yes, every effort to provide people, usually elderly, to procure a proper ID, without expense and ease of procurement. There is well documented evidence of voter fraud conducted by the group ACORN in TX. All people need to be educated and need to vote, eliminating fraud which can have a huge impact on local elections. Every LEGAL vote should count. Fraud occurs by both parties republican and democratic.

"it's difficult to imagine how the Pennsylvania law can stand up to any legitimate legal scrutiny"

When I read the stipulation, I too couldn't figure out what argument the Commonwealth was going to make to defend the law. I got the answer when the Commonwealth filed its pretrial brief.

Believe it or not, the Commonwealth actually argues that the right to vote is NOT a fundamental right and, therefore, that photo ID laws need not pass strict scrutiny but rather only need pass the rational basis test. The Commonwealth then argues that the Supreme Court already has decided that photo ID laws are rationally related to a legitimate government interest, even in the absence of evidence of voter fraud.

Given how frequently the GOP has perpetrated the "Big Lie" --- "voter fraud" --- it is not all that surprising to find the utterly deceived (Todd @1) blathering about "documented cases of voter fraud" even in the face of an admission by the PA GOP that they can offer not a scintilla of evidence that any voter at any time in the history of Pennsylvania --- the birthplace of our democracy --- engaged in a single instance of in-person voter impersonation, which is the only form of voter fraud which can be prevented by polling place Photo ID laws.

In fact, the parties stipulated that there hasn't even been an investigation of in-person voter fraud in PA! It doesn't get much more compelling than that.

Todd confuses the 24/7 propaganda barrage emanating mostly from the right-wing echo chamber, but often repeated by the mainstream media, about "ACORN voter fraud" and confuses that with "documentation" of fraud.

According to yet another official report on the matter from the Congressional Research Service [PDF] released late last year, as commissioned by U.S. House Judiciary Committee, as of October 2009, there have been 46 reported federal, state, and local investigations concerning ACORN; 11 still pending. None have established a single instance in which an individual, improperly registered by ACORN or its employees, has then attempted "to vote at the polls." The study reveals that ACORN themselves is often the initiator of official complaints against employees who defraud them, when they turn in fraudulent registrations.

Nonetheless, the GOP propaganda campaign, aided and abetted by the incurious corporate media, has helped lead the right-wing faithful to believe ACORN is in the "voter fraud" business, despite the complete lack of evidence to support the theory. A recent survey by the non-partisan Research 2000 found that one in five (21%) of self-identified Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 Presidential election for Barack Obama. Another 55% are "not sure" if they did or not.

There are, indeed, cases of documented voter fraud, Todd, e.g. last year Indiana's Republican Secretary of State Charlie White was convicted of three counts of felony voter fraud for voting in a precinct in which he did not reside.

At the time White committed those three felonies, Indiana required voters, including White, to present Photo IDs at the polls. But, as noted above, Photo ID can only prevent in-person impersonation. It cannot and did not prevent someone like White, who possesses the requisite ID, from committing this form of voter fraud.

Frankly, the PA GOP's reliance upon Crawford and the fact that voting is not treated as a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution is altogether misplaced.

The trial court will be bound by prior PA appellate decisions. As pointed out by the Applewhite plaintiffs in their preliminary injunction trial brief, PA appellate courts have determined that "the right to vote is not only 'fundamental' but also 'the bedrock of our free political system.'"

The brief cites In re Nader (2004) in which the PA Supreme Court held that "where a precious freedom such as voting is involved, a compelling state interest must be demonstrated."

That is the equal protection standard that courts routinely apply as to legislation that adversely impacts a fundamental right.

Also, many people misunderstand the plurality U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford. In that case, the Court rejected a challenge that alleged that Indiana's Photo ID law was unconstitutional on its face. The plurality made it clear that a Photo ID law could be considered unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution if those challenging the law proved that it imposed an undue burden.

That undue burden is presented by way of the expert testimony offered in Applewhite.

While it is risky to predict a ruling in advance, this is about as close to a slam dunk in a challenge to Photo ID as you will ever see.

You obviously have never read any historic news articles on actual voter fraud in PA. Please do your research. Read the articles of the actual documented voter fraud that has occurred in TX. Yes, every effort to provide people, usually elderly, to procure a proper ID, without expense and ease of procurement. There is well documented evidence of voter fraud conducted by the group ACORN in TX. All people need to be educated and need to vote, eliminating fraud which can have a huge impact on local elections. Every LEGAL vote should count. Fraud occurs by both parties republican and democratic.

Okay...that's a whole lotta disinfo to unpack there. But let's start this way...

+ Please share with us a link to one documented instance of voter fraud that might have been prevented by a polling place Photo ID in Pennsylvania. While the Commonwealth itself was unable to cite any such instance, perhaps --- since neither they nor I, apparently, have done our "research" --- you've have the secret evidence you can share with us.

+ Feel free to share same from TX.

+ While you're in TX, please feel free to share any instance of "voter fraud" by ACORN in TX, or anywhere else for that matter. Be careful now, because voter registration fraud, is not the same as voter fraud. Voter registration fraud is when someone signs a bunch of documents defrauding the group who hired them to get those registrations. Kinda like the Republican hired groups did in California in 2008 and again in 2012, or the ones hired by Newt Gingrich who turned in thousands of fraudulent signatures in an attempt to get on the ballot in VA. Actual voter fraud, on the other hand, would be what the Republican Sec. of State was found guilty of --- in three felony counts --- earlier this year. Or what Mitt Romney appears to have done in Massachusets.

I should note that in both of those cases --- and even in the case of Ann Coulter's voter fraud --- a polling place Photo ID restriction, like the one the GOP is attempting to disenfranchise voters with in PA, would not have deterred the voter fraud.

But other than that, feel free to share any example of ACORN having helped to cast an illegal ballot in any election, anywhere, at any time.

Do your research! We'll be waiting. Thanks!

(When you finish with your assignment, I'll let you know about how wrong you are on all of the other disinformation you included in your comment. But one baby step at a time.)

And oh yeah Brad, sorry I didn't make my contribution deadline to you...but I'm still working on my partner to make his contribution to our county's finest disseminate RRRR(growl) of truth in all things voting!

And did you catch the Democracy Now piece on the Sandusky tragedy. It notes how corbet took huge campaign contributions from his nonprofit child molesting outfit. Sure wish more people would press our govenor on that issue too! And you know me... a little more OT:

The Commonwealth of PA and the plaintiffs in the state challenge to the law have filed a remarkable one-page, 6-point stipulation [PDF] in advance of the trial in that case which is set to begin tomorrow.

--are you saying that BOTH sides are agreeing with what's in that stipulation, or what? I'd really like to understand this one completely cuz it sounds unbelievable.

The Commonwealth of PA and the plaintiffs in the state challenge to the law have filed a remarkable one-page, 6-point stipulation [PDF] in advance of the trial in that case which is set to begin tomorrow.

--are you saying that BOTH sides are agreeing with what's in that stipulation, or what? I'd really like to understand this one completely. It sounds so unbelievable.

[DAVID - I fixed both comments for you. Remember, when you use a tag, like {blockquote}, or {strong} to make it bold (with pointy brackets around the tags, instead of squigly ones), you must always turn them OFF by using the exact same tag again, but with a slash before it. So to end the blockquote, you'd use {/blockquote} at the end. Got it? - BF]

Hey Lasagna, I read it to mean that yes both agree (when the feds step in) that yes, there is no actual evidence in case law of a problem (that disenfranchises voters) so... no evidence of an actual problem! Amazing what are federal government can really do isn't it?

Sorry, I still don't know how to fucking format my ass in a paper bag, apparently.

On my first try I touched "blockquote" on either side of the quote from the post. Somehow what I wrote after that looks like it's in some sort of blockquote, too. So I tried again and just clicked on "blockquote", copied quote, then made space, continued writing. The second part which was again not a copy of the quote still came out as a blockquote. So fuck me. I hate computers.

Brad, I know you've walked me through this before and that you're busy. Good thing I just sent you a nice donation before this latest screw up, I guess.(I hope)

Yes, David, that is what he's saying. Both sides are stipulating that there is no historical or current evidence of impersonation at polling places that could be prevented by photo IDs, in Pennsylvania or anywhere else. The state is arguing that that doesn't really matter because there's no fundamental right to vote. It does boggle the mind.

Yup David, simply incredifuckingbibble. And hello Cambridgeknitter, good to see your still here, although your last statement takes some of the air out of this potential victory for real democracy. But, I appreciate the guarding view.

At least in arguing it that way, as incredible as it seems, they're being more honest with what they actually believe.

Read today the latest Bill McKibben piece on the state of the planet(saw it over at commondreams). In my despair I sorta had to laugh. We're asleep at the wheel for all the things that matter, even as we head off the cliff. In denial about our lack of election integrity. In denial of the ongoing criminality of the fossil fuel industries. To name just two. And yet, the only thing to do is to keep on raising a ruckus, and keep on making music, and keep on dancing, and keep on enjoying sunsets. Me, I'll see if I can get up and go jump into Walden Pond first thing tomorrow morning.

Hey David an ole friend of mine who showed up at a memorial diner I had for another friend who passed away reminded me that he calls all of us who were there his " mon petite tribe'" Ya know, put a french accent on it, but that's kinda how I feel about the ole time commentors here too!

David Lasagna - As others have confirmed, yes, both sides are stipulating to those points, so they will not be in contention in the trial itself. They are agreed upon in advance, by the stipulation.

Also, please see my tip up at comment @ 11 for you, on where you went wrong in your formatting and how to try again with more success next time.

Also, received your very generous donation today. THANK YOU, sir! It means the world, though I'd have given you the HTML help either way

Ancient - Thanks in advance to you and your partner, for whatever contribution ya'll are able to muster. As always, it is greatly appreciated!

One point, however, you referred above to it being "Amazing what are federal government can really do isn't it?" --- In fact, the stipulation above is between the ACLU and the Commonwealth of PA, since this is a challenge to the law under the state Constitution.

The challenge I wrote about yesterday, being considered by the federal government, to the same law, but as a violation of federal law, would be a different case entirely. No doubt, however, the stipulations filed in this case will come in very handy in any future litigation at the federal level.

Finally, your Comedy Central is gone because DishTV and Viacom are having a spat. CC wants to raise the price that DishTV must pay to show it's channels, DishTV doesn't want to pay that price. I, on the other hand, don't have DishTV, so I get CC just fine.

CambridgeKnitter - Just saying hi! Didn't have anything to add, but didn't want you to feel left out!

@Canning #4 writes: "the fact that voting is not treated as a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution is altogether misplaced."

The Commonwealth actually is arguing that the right to vote is not a fundamental right under the PENNSYLVANIA Constitution. As support for this argument, it points to a case from 2000 in which the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that FELONS do not have a fundamental right to vote.

So the Commonwealth's legal theory is that, because FELONS lose their right to vote when they are convicted, NOBODY has a fundamental right to vote.

I've had to make any number of less than slam-dunk legal arguments for clients over the years, but I would be embarrassed to make that argument to a Commonwealth Court judge with a straight face.

"On Point", a public radio talk show syndicated by WBUR Boston, is doing voter suppression and photo ID in the first hour this morning (10 a.m. Eastern). If your local station doesn't carry it, you can stream at www.wbur.org or join the comment thread at http://onpoint.wbur.org/...r-voter-id#disqus_thread. The guests are Ethan Bronner of the NYT, Hans von Spakovsky (why is a liar like him always on these guest lists?) and Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center.

Well after reading thoroughly brain washed Todd #1 I was all ready to respond.
However after reading Earnest #3 and Brad #5 all I can add is Bravo and Well said.

It does amaze me everyday though when I see such ignorance spewed by people.
It just goes to show how destructive it is allowing media of any kind to knowingly tell bald faced lies.
Knowingly telling bald faced lies to millions should not be covered under "free speech".
The damage it causes to this country is incalculable.

The Commonwealth actually is arguing that the right to vote is not a fundamental right under the PENNSYLVANIA Constitution. As support for this argument, it points to a case from 2000 in which the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that FELONS do not have a fundamental right to vote.

That argument is so specious, I'd be surprised if the attorney making it didn't blush while trying to defend it during oral arguments.

Here are the two questions I would pose to the Commonwealth if I were one of the judges in the case.

Are you suggesting that our courts should treat voters who lack the requisite Photo ID as if they were convicted felons?

Do you not acknowledge a difference between stripping convicted felons of their rights and preserving the rights of law abiding citizens?

Brad--Thanks for the fixing and the additional coaching. Think I got it. Can't wait to fuck it up again.

GWN--I'm still a twitter-free zone. Got no cell. Yah!

Nunya--I'm with you. It's amazing how casual we are as a nation about allowing perpetual lying on OUR airwaves. All about responsibility, but hell, feel free to lie, misinform, mislead, whatever as much as you like. We got absolutely no problem with that. So dysfunctional. How about a three strikes rule? If you lie three times, you're off the air for ten years. I don't know, how about ANY fucking rule about lying, anything, SOMETHING besides that it's completely AOK.

Ernie--thanks for the comprehensive explanation to augment all the other explanations. Completely clear now. It's good to thoroughly understand these things, especially for getting into discussions with friends and family from the dark side.

And finally, I'll say it again-- This is this weird distorted brand of conservatism's strongest suit. They are willing to say and do ANYTHING and seemingly do it with complete sincerity and utter conviction. Voting is not a fundamental right. Just astonishing. Can't wait to hear what's next like, gravity is a socialist plot denying us our freedom to float away.

Side notes: The hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction begins today and is expected to last between five to seven days.

The matter is being heard by Judge Robert Simpson in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in Harrisburg.

Simpson graduated Magna cum laude from Dickenson College (Penn Stat Univ.) in 1973; received his J.D. from Dickenson School of Law in 1976 and is serving his second ten year term as a judge of the Commonwealth Court. He has also "served an adjunct professor of law at the Dickinson School of Law" between 1998 and 2005.

States will survive only until the American people, as well as illegals on welfare, discover they can vote themselves largess from the public purse. We won't survive, but Brad will do his part to make sure everyone will have a chance at the American Dream of a chicken in every pot and cable TV, courtesy of those not dependent on the public purse. The parasite class will soon be in the majority. The nation is bankrupt. Maybe government isn't such a good daddy after all. And, maybe the greater depression, brought about by fascists and socialists like Bush and Obama, will change the course of this country for the better--the great reset--of a nation hooked on violence, wars and corruption courtesy of the government we elected.

Instead of listening to all of the right wing bullshit that is thrown about, all you have to do is watch what is said in court where the "truth" for the most part has to be told, then your "voter fraud" argument falls flat on it's face. People are so goddamned gullible.

Once again we see what we've known all along proven. The GOP knows it cannot win in the court of ideas. Largely because their ideas suck on toast. The only way they can win is if they rig the game. We saw this in Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, and now in Texas (which will be blue by 2020), Wisconsin (now a dictatorship), and Pennsylvania. If they truly believed their ideas were so appealing to the masses, they wouldn't be passing such restrictive laws. But again. Conservatives can never win without cheating.

The greatest voter fraud is what the republican party is doing to the American voter. Along with Fox noise spouting lie after lie and their following beliving every word they say. You can tell the Fox watcher by their comments that come straight from Fox. I must admit that I watched Fox a few years ago but started questioning what they were saying and then started to double check to see if what they say is true. I found out when they say we are the only ones telling you the truth they were lying. I got out of the "cult" before I was completely brainwashed. Sad to say there are to many that are still in the "cult"

When you say-"illegals on welfare"--what comes to my mind are the Gall Street criminals.

When you say--"courtesy of those not dependent on the public purse"--I think, NOBODY is not dependent on the public purse in one way or another.

When you say,"The parasite class"--I think again of the 1 percenters.

When you say,"The nation is bankrupt."--I think, well, there sure is money for wars, Wall Street, and the ultra-rich.

When you say,"Maybe government isn't such a good daddy after all."--I think, how disingenuous to measure a government's performance as lacking when one side(your side?)is doing everything in its power every single day to keep government from functioning.

But when you say Obama is a socialist, as a socialist, I don't know what to say to a notion so completely disconnected from fact, reason, the meaning of words, history, and reality.

You should try talking in person to an actual socialist sometime about whether they think Obama is a socialist. That is if you can get past the part where they laugh in your face.

Abbey: When you made reference to "illegals on welfare" were you expressing a concern about corporate welfare or were you just adding drivel about the supposedly shiftless poor? Did it ever occur to you that the source of their poverty lies in the ability of the wealthy few to reduce government to the point that it can only reward the rich and wage war?

When you refer to the "parasite class" were you referring to the CEOs and Wall Street investors of the unnecessary and parasitic middle men we call healthcare insurers --- the ones who are responsible for eating up 31% of healthcare costs in the U.S. as compared to administrative costs in single payer countries --- you know the socialist tyrannies like France, Britain and Canada who think health care is a basic human right.

Of course, the greatest parasites are the top .01% at the pinnacle of the military industrial complex who make a killing off the violence you proclaim to detest.

How can you complain about the corruption of government without complaining about the billionaires whose secret campaign contributions are the source of the corruption --- the same billionaires, like Charles and David Koch, who are behind the spate of voter suppressing Photo ID laws, such as the one that is the topic of this article --- a topic your rant chooses to ignore.

And while you're at it, please explain what relevance, if any, you believe your comment has to the topic at hand --- voter suppression.

Great job on the firsthand report! Reading Cawley's opening remarks makes one realize there is a factual basis for all those lawyer jokes.(No offense to the good and honorable lawyers out there. I know there are great numbers of them, too.)